Fighter vs cleric (pathfinder)

[Prax4788]

In my game today i was playing my cleric and i noticed that i wasnt having fun at all

after talking about what i will be playing next i mention i had a lot more fun with the fighter than i did with the cleric at which my dm snapped at me saying " they play exacly the game except cleric is beter in every way"

with fighter having the ability to me a master of his items and the long feat list i found them to be a fun and unique class depending on the style of the player

has anyone had any input in this and if they do in fact play the same and i just missed something ?

and also is they cleric really better than the fighter ?

[Prax4788]

Any one fighter vs cleric ?

[Dracons]

Only a few spells allow the cleric to have the exact attack bonus as a fighter, the exact same list of feats, and higher strength and con, even if they are low base.

Yeah, they are based on time frame, but most of the time, you'll be able to plow through all the encounters for the day with time to spare, only to repeat it the next.

In my opinion though?

Play the fighter if you want. Yeah, cleric can be better, but if your happy with the fighter, then be the fighter and let the DM know oyu have more fun with fighter then cleric.


EDIT:

Dude.... you only posted ten minutes ago. Give people freaking time to respond. Not everyone is up uber late prowing these boards.

[Prax4788]

sounds like a good way to go

he was treating my choice to play a fighter like I was choosing a bard for a main caster

[Harperfan7]

Some of us are up uber early, though.

And he's a pixie, chill.

Yeah, if you want to play a fighter, do it. (Honestly, I'd do it just to piss off that DM of yours)

[Prax4788]

to tell u the truth in the end i decided to build a monk who throws shuriken's

[nyjastul69]

In the long run casters are simply more powerful. Power does not equal fun. If you enjoy playing a fighter, have at it. I play in a game where one of the players just wants to tank-up and whack things with a stick. I suggested ToB to her, but I don't think she liked the flavor. If the other players are playing a standard D&D game it'll be some time before you're left behind.

[Prax4788]

The game is core pathfinder with little feats from other books

[faceroll]

A lot of the bread and butter cleric spells last minutes or rounds, which means that you only get to do it a few times a day, and you've got to spend a lot of time putting spells up to be as good as the fighter. As soon as the fighter's turn comes up, he's going to be laying down hurt. The cleric will have to spend a standard action or two to cast divine righteous cheese or whatever.

[Eldan]

To explain a little more:

With spells like Divine Power and a few follow-ups and other buffs, the cleric can easily beat the crap out of a fighter of equal level and, apart from that, has way more abilities which are useful out of combat. You can have higher stats, better weapons, better armour, can be bigger and have the same base attack as the fighter if you are willing to spend the spells on it.

However, as others have said:
Play what you think is fun. The wizard and druid might be the most powerful classes by a wide margin, especially in core only, but that doesn't mean that everyone wants to play them.

[Tinydwarfman]

Yeah, Clerics are leagues ahead of fighters in both power and versatility. Check out the Tier System for more info.

As others have said though, play what you want. Especially for beginners (which I am assuming, correct me if I'm wrong), Clerics are a lot to handle, preparing from a ridiculously large list of spells and whatnot. Playing a fighter might not be a bad idea, just to until you get a better grasp of the rules, or are more familiar with the game.

[Caphi]

1) They do not play exactly the same. This is a lie. The battle cleric maintains a list of auras that enable him to fight.

2) The battle cleric is more powerful than the fighter.

3) More powerful and better are two subtly different things, provided you define "better" in terms of your personal enjoyment.

Play the fighter if you will have more fun doing it. It probably won't kill you.

Now that I've said that, I'd like to point out that the barbarian does do the same job as a fighter but better, in the sense of "flip out and charge the baddies while having lots of HP", and also have rage, skill points, and a few other nice things.

[Gnaeus]

Now that I've said that, I'd like to point out that the barbarian does do the same job as a fighter but better, in the sense of "flip out and charge the baddies while having lots of HP", and also have rage, skill points, and a few other nice things.

In 3.5 I agree. In core pathfinder, where the fighter gets bonuses to armor and weapon use and the barbarian gets the strange 4+con mod rounds of frenzy/day, I'm really not sure. The barbarian is still more flexible, but I bet the fighter wins more fights. (Results vary by exact level, weapon, the rage powers picked by the barbarian and whether the fighter has a high enough dex to benefit from the higher AC granted by his armor mastery).

[shadmere]

The cleric is potentially stronger, but that's irrelevant if you don't like playing a cleric. Someone who doesn't like playing a cleric probably won't play a cleric very well, whereas they'd play a fighter they enjoyed much better.

Kind of weird if your DM actually snapped at you, too, IMO. DMs disallowing a class for balance is one thing, but there's a place where it becomes weird and overbearing.

[tyckspoon]

In 3.5 I agree. In core pathfinder, where the fighter gets bonuses to armor and weapon use and the barbarian gets the strange 4+con mod rounds of frenzy/day, I'm really not sure. The barbarian is still more flexible, but I bet the fighter wins more fights. (Results vary by exact level, weapon, the rage powers picked by the barbarian and whether the fighter has a high enough dex to benefit from the higher AC granted by his armor mastery).

Barbarian starts higher and scales a little faster, thanks to higher Rage bonus and a few really useful low-level rage powers, but caps quicker because a lot of the Rage powers are just really lame after you've picked the good ones (Scent, the bite attack, the one that lets you take an AoO against somebody entering your threat zone, maybe the Acrobatics one if you're using 3.5 material alongside and can combine it with Leap Attack.) Fighter is better if you're playing a long game or starting at higher levels, when you can bring the greater weight of feats to bear (mind, I think the Pathfinder feats are still pretty lame, but they're a bit better than the 3.5 core selection for a fighter.) Of course, both are still much improved by dipping the other; a majority Fighter or Barbarian with 2-4 levels of the other class will be better off than single-classing either.

[Gnaeus]

Barbarian starts higher and scales a little faster, thanks to higher Rage bonus and a few really useful low-level rage powers, but caps quicker because a lot of the Rage powers are just really lame after you've picked the good ones (Scent, the bite attack, the one that lets you take an AoO against somebody entering your threat zone, maybe the Acrobatics one if you're using 3.5 material alongside and can combine it with Leap Attack.) Fighter is better if you're playing a long game or starting at higher levels, when you can bring the greater weight of feats to bear (mind, I think the Pathfinder feats are still pretty lame, but they're a bit better than the 3.5 core selection for a fighter.) Of course, both are still much improved by dipping the other; a majority Fighter or Barbarian with 2-4 levels of the other class will be better off than single-classing either.

I don't think it is as clear as that. Few of the barbarian powers are really combat winners, and a straight +1 to hit, damage and AC at level 5 help all day long. It is much easier for fighters to present a credible second threat with ranged attacks (although the bite ability helps the Barbarian grapple).

Admittedly, the barbarian does have more utility than the fighter, but for a day full of combat, I think fighter often comes out better.

And yes, dipping almost always helps muggles.

[Paul H]

Hi

Why not just play both?

Holy Warrior (PF Chronicles Pg 43) has D10 HP/lvl, Ftr BAB, Cleric spells/progression, but NO Domains (spells or powers). But you still Channel Energy. You also gain proficiency with your God's favoured weapon.

Now you CAN have your cake (and most other people's) and eat it!

Cheers
Paul H

[Mojo_Rat]

My experiende in Pathfinder doesnt seem to suggest Clerics nececarily can simply replace fighters any more. PF fighters can be pretty amazing in their damage dealing and fun to play.

Dont really think either class plays remotely the same though.

[Paul H]

Hi

It's simpler to just play what you're used to.

I love/play/got decades of experience playing spellcasters of one sort or another. Any time I get to play a new system, I look out for spellcasters, so I can just concentrate on the game mechanics. Eg. If the party needs a Tank, then its Dwarf Cleric time.

PF Fighters are more powerful, but so is everything else.

But each to their own.

Thanks
Paul H

[Dusk Eclipse]

@^: actually even core fighters in 3.5 mcan deal ridiculus amount of damage, nevermind when you get stuff like leap attack, shock trooper etc.

[HunterOfJello]

Holy Warrior (PF Chronicles Pg 43) has D10 HP/lvl, Ftr BAB, Cleric spells/progression, but NO Domains (spells or powers). But you still Channel Energy. You also gain proficiency with your God's favoured weapon.

This.

~

Also, there's always multiclassing and prestige classing. Cleric dips are great and Fighter dips are equally also great.

If you like playing a Cleric and like playing a Fighter, find a way to mix it together so that you can have your cake, eat it and then smack your enemies if the face with it too.

Clerics are great because their casting isn't limited by anything that would stop them from working as effective Fighters. Wizards and Sorceres get spell failure and Druids get the no-metal armor rules, but Clerics get off with spellcasting scott-free.

Check out hybrid classes like the suggested Holy Warrior or Prestige classes that would boost your BAB, maybe give you some bonus feats and allow you to do mostly full casting.

[Prax4788]

Yeah, Clerics are leagues ahead of fighters in both power and versatility. Check out the Tier System for more info.

As others have said though, play what you want. Especially for beginners (which I am assuming, correct me if I'm wrong), Clerics are a lot to handle, preparing from a ridiculously large list of spells and whatnot. Playing a fighter might not be a bad idea, just to until you get a better grasp of the rules, or are more familiar with the game.

I'm far from a new player. But your point stands all the same

[Stephen_E]

I emphasise the point others have made that in PF the Cleric=Fighter but better doesn't really apply in PF.
I suspect your DM is used to 3.5 and has readjusted his assumptions.

One of the major dents in that is that The Fighter gets the feats that he can easily set up to use Combat Manuvers, and the Combat Manuvers are easier to play and less likely to bit you back.

It's still true that a Battle Cleric is more powerful than a Fighter, but he isn't the same as a Fighter, and a Fighter can do combat options that the Cleric simply won't have available to him (disarm the evil cleric of her uber-weapon flicking it back for someone lese to grab and then trip her and give your allies an AOO. And if things go south run off and sell the bad guys uberweapon for lots of cash (done some of that with a simple 6th level Fighter :-) ).

But I will stress that if you want a Fighter that isn't a pale imitation of a Battle Cleric invest in at least 1 and preferably 2+ Combat Manuver types. Complimentry prereqs recommended, so Disarm and Trip work together well. IIRC Bull Rush/Over Run and Bull Rush/Shield Fighting work together well, although the latter requires good Dex.

Stephen E

[faceroll]

To explain a little more:

With spells like Divine Power and a few follow-ups and other buffs, the cleric can easily beat the crap out of a fighter of equal level and, apart from that, has way more abilities which are useful out of combat. You can have higher stats, better weapons, better armour, can be bigger and have the same base attack as the fighter if you are willing to spend the spells on it.

Not just spells, but actions. The best spells last minutes or rounds/level, and a DM can easily construct encounters such that you can only be as good or better than a fighter for a handful of them.

[Kaiyanwang]

Nitpick: Battle Cleric is from a Golarion product for 3.5 (campaing setting IIRC).

Technicallt, is NOT pathfinder. Moreover developers said that 9 level spell + full BAB all day is a bad idea and will not happen again in the future.

OP, I'm DMing a Pathfinder Core Only one-shot these days (last session yesterday). A friend of mine is playing a fighter 12 that is FOR COMBAT, a powerhouse. Of course does not heal or summons or flame strikes, but for the concept he wanted, a smart warrior that perfectly controls battlefield around him, works pretty well.

He took the Combat Expertise/Disarm/Trip, Power Attack/Bullrush, and Shield Slam/Shieldmaster tiers of feats mostly, BTW.

A not on the barbarian: in PF most people say that has been nerfed, and it's true that few rage powers are uninspiring.

Said this remember that fighter has several good statical bonuses, but Barbarian is "Mr Exploit". Barbarian has occasional explosions of physical prowess that are memorable. And uncanny dodge, along with defensive rage owers, make him more protected, exspecially from magic.

This time the adventure was an escape from a orcs and goblins fortress. Fighter struggled to find his specialized weapons (even if weapon groups helped). A barbarian rages and has bonuses even with a chair.

This time, for the first part, the real OP character was the monk

[Tinydwarfman]

I emphasise the point others have made that in PF the Cleric=Fighter but better doesn't really apply in PF.
I suspect your DM is used to 3.5 and has readjusted his assumptions.

I suspect you need to re-asses your assumptions about what actually changed in PF. Not much. The Tier System is still about the same, at least in relation to Fighters and Clerics.

One of the major dents in that is that The Fighter gets the feats that he can easily set up to use Combat Manuvers, and the Combat Manuvers are easier to play and less likely to bit you back.

The problem with this is that you actually need to invest more feats into combat maneuvers to make them worthwhile, when they weren't all that good in the first place. Tripping, the only really good one, now eats your AoOs so you can't hit them again when they get back up, and costs 2 feats!

It's still true that a Battle Cleric is more powerful than a Fighter, but he isn't the same as a Fighter, and a Fighter can do combat options that the Cleric simply won't have available to him (disarm the evil cleric of her uber-weapon flicking it back for someone lese to grab and then trip her and give your allies an AOO. And if things go south run off and sell the bad guys uberweapon for lots of cash (done some of that with a simple 6th level Fighter :-) ).

Why doesn't the Cleric have these options available to him? Because he's got better ones. Disarming isn't that great for a few reasons:
1: Nothing is stopping opponents from being smart and carrying more than 1 weapon.
2: Is simply doesn't work against a ton of enemies.
3: You spent your action on the possibility of doing something rather ineffectual. What does the Cleric do when you disarm him? He curses your ass and takes it right back, if he doesn't just conjure a new one, or pull out an ordinary mace and smash your face in.

But I will stress that if you want a Fighter that isn't a pale imitation of a Battle Cleric invest in at least 1 and preferably 2+ Combat Manuver types. Complimentry prereqs recommended, so Disarm and Trip work together well. IIRC Bull Rush/Over Run and Bull Rush/Shield Fighting work together well, although the latter requires good Dex.

You know all of those lovely combat feats you keep talking about? Clerics can get them too. They just have better things to spend their feats on. Combat Maneuvers other than trip, and sometimes disarm are complete jank that you should never spend 2-3 feats on.

Stephen E

So, Stephen E, could you tell what actually improved about the fighter in PF? Because Combat Maneuvers actually got worse.

[Kaiyanwang]

Tinydwarfman, I'm sorry, but

Combat Maneuvers Worse in PF = FALSE.

1) You don't need more feats. Basic feats are enough, and the secondary ones are a must only in the case of Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush. The latter is less mandatory tough, and Greater Trip causes AOO from every member of the party, as long as summoned monsters and cohorts. Can be VERY nasty if used smart.

2) Every bonus to hit add to CMB. This lead to play smart, seek for feints, flanks, stay at 30 feet from the bard and the like. If one don't like it, just play an archer or a two-hander with vital strike and critical feats.


Vs the cleric, you use disarm or sunder on his holy symbol.And, at least in my games, is hard be always buffed. Cleric buffs are great but, barring cheese, you can't keep up all the day.

The fighter has more static bonuses in PF. If added to the right weapons, come up to a +20% or greater chance to perform the maneuvers. And old tricks like wizard casting on you enlarge person works.

Yeah, the cleric has feats too. But in the reasoning of a level advancement, you take the maneuvers feats slower.

Finally, remember what I said aboove about battle cleric.

Of course, clerics are strong in general. But, 'til now, FOR THE MERE COMBAT fighter is more than playabel. YMMV, of course.

[Nero24200]

Tinydwarfman, I'm sorry, but

Combat Maneuvers Worse in PF = FALSE.

1) You don't need more feats. Basic feats are enough, and the secondary ones are a must only in the case of Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush. The latter is less mandatory tough, and Greater Trip causes AOO from every member of the party, as long as summoned monsters and cohorts. Can be VERY nasty if used smart.

Actually, Paizo even admitted they wanted combat manuvers played down, to the point that players would only use them if either they are either A) Heavily invested in or B)In a dire situation where only that manuver would work.

Saying "the latter is less mandatory" isn't strictly true. If you want to be good at tripping, no AOO's and a +2 bonus isn't really going to work. I'll use tripping since thats a good example.

PrePF - One feat allows you to ignore AOO, grants a +4 bonus to attempts and allows a free attack upon success.
AfterPF - Two feats are needed to ignore AOO and gain the +4 bonus, as well as the extra attack (though is should be noted, in PF the attack is treated as an AOO, so in taking it you use up your AOO for the turn).

You don't need to look hard to see that tripping was better in 3.5

2) Every bonus to hit add to CMB. This lead to play smart, seek for feints, flanks, stay at 30 feet from the bard and the like. If one don't like it, just play an archer or a two-hander with vital strike and critical feats.

Considering alot of manuvers in 3.5 required attack rolls (like trip, sunder etc), gaining those bonuses would have been helpful for 3.5 characters. Nothing has really changed there.

Vs the cleric, you use disarm or sunder on his holy symbol.And, at least in my games, is hard be always buffed. Cleric buffs are great but, barring cheese, you can't keep up all the day.

Firstly, a cleric's holy sumbol could be anything. I once played a divine character with his holy symbols tatooed on his hands, as well as being featured on his sheild. If you're good enough to chop limbs off and smash full suits of armour and sheilds, you don't really need to go for the holy symbol.

Also, all day buffs are overrated. I played in plenty of games and there has never been a shortage of "game days" where only a few combats are encountered (less than the recommended 4 a day). It should noted that some of these were Pathfinder adventure paths, but also modules produced by others as well such as the Sunless Citadel which, whilst features more encounters, doesn't impose a time limit and many of the encounters are close, allowing short-term buffs to last multiple fights. So less fights per day doesn't seem like too much of a novalty - which means short-term buffs are alot more powerful than origonally intended.

Besides, no class can go all day unless your fighters are avoiding every single attack made and never losing any hit points.

Finally, remember what I said aboove about battle cleric.

Of course, clerics are strong in general. But, 'til now, FOR THE MERE COMBAT fighter is more than playabel. YMMV, of course.

Personally, I feel these two sentences contradict each other. Lets look at the battle cleric....Full BAB, D10 Hit Dice, Two Good Saves, Up to 9th level spells at the same rate wizards gain spells (I.E second level spells at 3rd level, third level spells at 5th level etc). I don't see how the battle cleric can be less effective in combat that the fighter.

The 3.5 fighter was overshadowed easily by the cleric just using spells to gain full BAB. In PF, using the warrior cleric, clerics can gain even higher bonuses, especially since alot of the spells were changed from "You gain BAB equal to your level" to "You gain a bonus per X levels", which should stack with the warrior varient.

[Tinydwarfman]

Tinydwarfman, I'm sorry, but

Combat Maneuvers Worse in PF = FALSE.

1) You don't need more feats. Basic feats are enough, and the secondary ones are a must only in the case of Greater Trip and Greater Bull Rush. The latter is less mandatory tough, and Greater Trip causes AOO from every member of the party, as long as summoned monsters and cohorts. Can be VERY nasty if used smart.

1: This doesn't change the fact that what you used to get for free, you now need to pay an extra feat for. I don't know how that doesn't qualify as weaker. Also, the AoO is actually a bad thing. Realtively few people can afford to take Combat Reflexes, and if you don't, you can only make one attack against the tripped enemy, where you could normally always make 2.

2) Every bonus to hit add to CMB. This lead to play smart, seek for feints, flanks, stay at 30 feet from the bard and the like. If one don't like it, just play an archer or a two-hander with vital strike and critical feats.

CMB/D is a great change, it simplifies and encourages smart play, but it's not a increase in power for the fighter

Vs the cleric, you use disarm or sunder on his holy symbol.And, at least in my games, is hard be always buffed. Cleric buffs are great but, barring cheese, you can't keep up all the day.

So... you stop his ability to turn/channel?

But yes, DMM is great, but the cleric is still tier 1 without it. A cleric only needs 1 turn to become just as good, if not better than a fighter. And in many fights, you will have a turn to get ready, or close with the enemy.

The fighter has more static bonuses in PF. If added to the right weapons, come up to a +20% or greater chance to perform the maneuvers. And old tricks like wizard casting on you enlarge person works.

These bonuses are very minor, and only marginally better than Weapon Focus. At 5th, the fighter has +1 to attack and damage, and at 9th they get +2. A 9th level Cleric quickens Divine Favor to get +3 to attack and damage. Big whoop.

Yeah, the cleric has feats too. But in the reasoning of a level advancement, you take the maneuvers feats slower.

Finally, remember what I said aboove about battle cleric.

Of course, clerics are strong in general. But, 'til now, FOR THE MERE COMBAT fighter is more than playabel. YMMV, of course.

But why do I want to take maneuver feats? I'd rather take stuff like Extend, or Quicken.

Also, of course anything is playable, a CW samurai is 'playable', but a cleric is far stronger in combat than a fighter.

[Kaiyanwang]

Actually, Paizo even admitted they wanted combat manuvers played down, to the point that players would only use them if either they are either A) Heavily invested in or B)In a dire situation where only that manuver would work.

How much must is to have "invested heavily"? 2 feats?

Saying "the latter is less mandatory" isn't strictly true. If you want to be good at tripping, no AOO's and a +2 bonus isn't really going to work. I'll use tripping since thats a good example.

PrePF - One feat allows you to ignore AOO, grants a +4 bonus to attempts and allows a free attack upon success.
AfterPF - Two feats are needed to ignore AOO and gain the +4 bonus, as well as the extra attack (though is should be noted, in PF the attack is treated as an AOO, so in taking it you use up your AOO for the turn).

+4 on an opposed roll. If you ask me, the feat could be merged and be fine, but +4 in 3.5 and +4 in PF is not the same things for maneuvers (see below).

You don't need to look hard to see that tripping was better in 3.5

Considering alot of manuvers in 3.5 required attack rolls (like trip, sunder etc), gaining those bonuses would have been helpful for 3.5 characters. Nothing has really changed there.

Sorry, but this is not correct. In 3.5, there was a touch attack followed by an opposed roll. It was WAY more easy to land the touch attack (barring exceptions, but high touch AC is less common). The +2 from the bard was not relevant. Tha point was win the OPPOSED ROLL. FAAR more difficult to pimp, unless you call Person_Man to the rescue.

In Pathfinder, there is ONE roll. An size matters less. And every bonus to attack matter. The flank matters. the bard matters. If you land it, you tripped. Yes, the second featfor the AOO is lame, but if well played with the group, is far mor destructive.

Firstly, a cleric's holy sumbol could be anything. I once played a divine character with his holy symbols tatooed on his hands, as well as being featured on his sheild. If you're good enough to chop limbs off and smash full suits of armour and sheilds, you don't really need to go for the holy symbol.

Core rulebook states prices and material of holy symbols among adventuring gear. Since, indeed, an holy symbol tatoo is very cool, I'd go with a sunder attempt to tear off that part of skin from your hands.

Also, all day buffs are overrated. I played in plenty of games and there has never been a shortage of "game days" where only a few combats are encountered (less than the recommended 4 a day). It should noted that some of these were Pathfinder adventure paths, but also modules produced by others as well such as the Sunless Citadel which, whilst features more encounters, doesn't impose a time limit and many of the encounters are close, allowing short-term buffs to last multiple fights. So less fights per day doesn't seem like too much of a novalty - which means short-term buffs are alot more powerful than origonally intended.

Sometimes, at least in my games, you have not time to buff, or the fact that meleers gain time before heavy artillery opesn fire (or starts BF control) is part of the fun. And bufss can be dispelled.

Besides, no class can go all day unless your fighters are avoiding every single attack made and never losing any hit points.

This makes it unworthy to be played? Or makes his maneuvers less effective?I ask.

Personally, I feel these two sentences contradict each other. Lets look at the battle cleric....Full BAB, D10 Hit Dice, Two Good Saves, Up to 9th level spells at the same rate wizards gain spells (I.E second level spells at 3rd level, third level spells at 5th level etc). I don't see how the battle cleric can be less effective in combat that the fighter.

I was pointing out what said in post #25. Designers created Battle Cleric before rulebook and then said that in true pathfinder they would avoid full BAB +full castin. I was simply suggesting to carefully consider these lines before allow the battle cleric in a game. (Even if does not mean that the cleric is weak, see below).

The 3.5 fighter was overshadowed easily by the cleric just using spells to gain full BAB. In PF, using the warrior cleric, clerics can gain even higher bonuses, especially since alot of the spells were changed from "You gain BAB equal to your level" to "You gain a bonus per X levels", which should stack with the warrior varient.

I simply said that Fighter is worthy to be played, exspecially if a player, you know, wants to play it. I find weird that a DM disallow a fighter to make you play a full caster (unless such DM reads internet D&D forums too much).

Some people want simply swing a sword. OF course the cleric is a powerhouse, and is higher tier because does more and diverse things. BUt if the OP wants to play a fighter, let him play a freaking fighter, please.